How would Rove/Hughes Cover Up A Trump Pee Tape?

Trump Bodyguard Keith Schiller Testifies Russian Offered Trump Women, Was Turned Down

After a business meeting in preparation for the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, a Russian who attended the meeting told Donald Trump’s personal bodyguard Keith Schiller he could “send five women” to Trump’s hotel room, according to an NBC report on the congressional testimony Schiller gave behind closed doors Wednesday.

Schiller said he told the Russian, “We don’t do that type of stuff,” sources told NBC.

On their way back to the hotel Schiller said he and Trump laughed about the offer, and that he personally stood by Trump’s door after he went to bed. Multiple sources told NBC Schiller was confident that no one sent Trump any women that evening, and that he and Trump were aware of the possibility of wiretapping or hidden cameras in the hotel room.

War criminal, Karen Hughes, some guy, female war criminal

Now, what if you worked for the Trump White House and knew the real story about this entire incident as well as the rumors? How would you knock it down? For ideas I asked myself, What Would Karl Rove and Karen Hughes Do? WWKRKHD?

A war criminal, his wife and Karl Rove

There are multiple ways to discredit this story, and the media covering it.  You are already seeing some of them in the story from NBC,

In a statement, Schiller’s lawyer said “the versions of Mr. Schiller’s testimony being leaked to the press are blatantly false and misleading. ”

“We are appalled by the leaks that are coming from partisan insiders from the House Intelligence Committee,” said Stuart Sears. “It is outrageous that the very Committee that is conducting an investigation into leaks — purportedly in the public interest — is itself leaking information and defaming cooperative witnesses like Mr. Schiller. The Chairman and Ranking Member should investigate and hold accountable whoever is responsible for leaking false and misleading versions of Mr. Schiller’s testimony. This conduct is indefensible and calls into question the credibility and motives of the Committee’s investigation.”

Out of Context and Hair Splitting
Any versions of the testimony leaked can correctly be labeled “false and misleading”  because anything that it isn’t the word for word transcript, in complete context, can be categorized as misleading. If anyone gets a single word wrong, it can be called false.

(By the way, this was a technique of Rumsfeld, if someone paraphrased a comment he made he could say, “That’s not what I said.” the reporter often didn’t have the text in front of him. Rumsfeld could also say, “That’s out of context.” which gave him room to push a different interpretation.)

One Bad Detail Spoils the Whole Bunch
Another method to scuttle this story is to find and discredit one detail of the story which will be used to discredit the rest of the story. Remember how Dan Rather and 60 Minutes got busted  over a type font?

True Details in a Faked Document
The other method is to fabricate a piece of evidence then get it to the “liberal media.”  If the media outlet is cautious, they won’t run it until it’s vetted. They might see that it’s too good to be true and hold back, but not all media will wait.  After one runs it, the others will need to acknowledge it.  This plays into the media’s desire for a scoop and gives them an opportunity to comment without taking sides for a “both sides do it” story.

The key to this method is to make the fake evidence and sources look really good.   So for example, they could have real information, like the names of the women who were offered by Putin to go to Trump’s Room. But the document it is on is forged     Then someone tips off a blogger named Buckhead who just happens to know what to look for to prove that the email was forged . Third party experts will be brought in to confirm that document is false.

This tactic is a twofer.  It gives right wing media an opportunity to attack “the liberal media” for promoting “fake news” during their witch hunt against Trump and if more evidence shows up later, it can be dismissed as another fake.

True Details, Real Evidence from a Compromised Source

What if you know that evidence with real details will eventually be dug up?  Get it to someone who is already compromised or seen as crazy. Expose the problems with the source. Get others to disavow the source, which taints the story.

Is there anyone in the Trump White House who can plan three steps ahead, understand what the media wants and how to manipulate them,  use cut outs so their fingerprints aren’t on the fake evidence  and then implement it without being caught?   I don’t know. I do know that these kind of people exist. They work for law firms, PR firms, and intelligence agencies –both foreign and domestic.

You don’t have to be playing 11 dimensional chess to use some of these tactics, smearing sources and crying “fake news” is easy.  But when dumb, inexperienced people try to pull off these tactics they can be busted by people who are paying attention and know what to look for.  And there are a lot of dumb inexperience people in the Trump White House.

Comments are closed.